November 15, 2008

Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here.

“We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.

The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote....

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Much further down in the article, we see that this call for funds came after Prop 8 opponents were raking in huge sums, including "$3.9 million at a star-studded fund-raiser held at the Beverly Hills home of Ron Burkle." The "Yes" side needed to keep up with that and had to worry about a barrage of advertisements featuring appealing celebrities, such as the lovely Ellen Degeneres ad that "No on 8" released on October 17.

It bothers me that these 2 parts of the article are so widely separated, because it makes the "Yes" side look like it was playing a fearsome offensive game, when it was on the defense.

***

The article also says that "[b]y mid-October, most independent polls showed support for the proposition was growing, but it was still trailing." Is that right? According to Pollster, Prop 8 was leading by double digits through September, but that support was slipping, so that by mid-October, it was only up by +8. If Pollster is right, "Yes" needed to fight to regain the ground that had been lost to "No." And despite this effort, "Yes" continued to slip, down to +5 in late October, and from there to the election result, a mere +4.

So what did this infusion of support from Mormons really do? It didn't turn everything around, did it? It seems as though it only worked to allow "Yes" to hold on to enough of its earlier support to win.

***

The article also has some interesting discussion of the door-to-door effort: "Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers." The percentage sound high, but I'm curious about what "early" refers to. One could exaggerate by choosing the relevant point in time to count the percentage.

The canvass work could be exacting and highly detailed. Many Mormon wards in California, not unlike Roman Catholic parishes, were assigned two ZIP codes to cover. Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from “walkers,” assigned to knock on doors; to “sellers,” who would work with undecided voters later on; and to “closers,” who would get people to the polls on Election Day.

Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.

But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.

“It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,” one of the ward training documents said. “We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.”

I've never read this detailed a discussion of how canvassers try to persuade voters. Personally, I do not even answer my door during the election season, and back when I did, I would never get into a conversation with someone about how I would vote. I'd just try to get rid of them. But I suppose plenty of people actually stand there and discuss the issues, and I'm not surprised to hear that canvassers have alternate scripts depending on how the prospective voter answers an introductory question. It's not devious or worrisome -- in general -- to have a Script A and a Script B, is it?

Are we troubled then, to hear that the "Yes" canvassers had alternate scripts that depended on whether the prospective voter was open to arguments that the right answer was God's answer?

***

The NYT article is headlined "Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage." That's a hefty assertion, and it comes after attacks that have targeted Mormons.

[Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] said it was too early to tell what the long-term implications might be for the church, but in any case, he added, none of that factored into the decision by church leaders to order a march into battle. “They felt there was only one way we could stand on such a fundamental moral issue, and they took that stand,” he said. “It was a matter of standing up for what the church believes is right.”

Was that phrase "order a march into battle" really justified? Should journalists use the metaphor of religion as war and imply that religious people have set aside their powers of reason and judgment and simply take orders from leaders? Otterson spoke of religious people having moral values and taking political positions based on those values. Surely, that is acceptable. Of course, Otterson has plenty of motivation to downplay the vision of churches wielding the power to impose religious dogma upon the general populace.

That's the last line of the article, and I can't tell if the NYT wanted us to laugh at Ashton. "By their fruit, ye shall know them" is a Biblical verse -- Matthew 7:16 -- but quick Google shows that there are gay rights t-shirts using the phrase, exploiting the double meaning of "fruit." Did the Times mean for us to view Ashton as a clueless scripture-spewer?

129 comments:

The tactics and infusion of money was no different than what was used to sweep Democrats into office throughout my state of New Mexico, including the election od liberal Mormon Tom Udall to the U.S. Senate.

For those on this thread who still do not believe that the Mormon Church’s extraordinary effort here was all about an equal protection decision that would ultimately legalize polygamy, show me any similar effort by the Mormons against a legislative directive.

Mormons are still viewed as an exotic cult, vulnerable to attack. Marriott had to take out an ad announcing he had not supported proposition 8. Yet, Obama’s position was the same (to the extent that his position on anything is real). If some one sent white powder to a black church would it not create a firestorm?

But, it’s okay to attack a smaller and more vulnerable minority than one’s own. I personally blame the Piute Tribe.

the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Did the NYT just use the term "unusual stew" to describe what might other wise be called unprecedented consensus among major religious groups?

And the remaining religious groups outside of this consensus, er, unusual stew, what should they be called?

Are we troubled then, to hear that the "Yes" canvassers had alternate scripts that depended on whether the prospective voter was open to arguments that the right answer was God's answer?

NO. That's just good salemanship. Any person who is trying to persuade another to 'buy' something uses this technique.

Presentation/ sales skills. 101

Features: list the factual features of the item, idea, whatever.

Benefits: describe the benefits or results of the item, idea

Objections: solicit objections or feelings about the product. Size up the prospect. What is important to the prospect, what is objectionable about the product, item, idea to the prospect.

Overcome objections: bystressing the benefits again and presenting those points that will appeal to the prospect that might diminish or overcome the objection. Tailor your presentation to the observations about the prospect.

Close the sale: get agreement or a buy upon eliciting buying signals from the prospect who is now your client.

dbp has inspired me to put another ad on a straight singles site, in order to fake women into thinking that I like them. Of course i don't, but if the bigots want me to start dating girls - I have no choice. I will do as they say.

I will choose the fat and ugly girls, as they are the most vulnerable. The longest I've had to lead anyone on for was two months until I got bored.

It will be nice when secularists drop the idea that religious people have no right to engage in the political process.

Who said this? I don't see anyone saying this. They're just being engaged in the political debate, that's different than being denied a right to participate.

Aren't you just demanding that religionists should be able to impose their doctrine and be immune to criticism or political pressure being applied in return?

And, why do you think the powers of government should be used to impose religious doctrine on others who don't share that doctrine, or obedience to church hierarchy? (My idea of "religionism" or theocracy as a political belief system).

Gays should do everything they can to expose and shame the donors to Proposition 8.

I agree except to say not just gays, but all freedom-loving people. Much like the white abolitionists who helped abolish slavery.

Human civilization is strewn with examples of theocratic repression when religion dictates government policy. Yet here we have more examples of religionists trying to use their religious doctrine as the as the template for our laws.

Glad to be an inspiration dtl, but I didn't find anything to object to and didn't write about your first post.

The only quibble I had with it is the idea of exposing and shaming donors to prop 8. In all my years, I have yet to meet someone who is not proud of his beliefs. So, rather than shaming donors to prop. 8, you (in their eyes) be doing something more akin to drumming up publicity for them.

But I don't have time for more searching - gotta get down to the protest demonstration at City Hall because I believe every citizen has the equal right endowed by his/her/its Creator to equally make the same mistake.

Did the NYT just use the term "unusual stew" to describe what might other wise be called unprecedented consensus among major religious groups?

I noticed that too, and it made me laugh. If they were rallying around a liberal cause, they would have been praised for their ability to triumph over their differences, and be declared a diverse and vibrant group. There would have been lots of heart-warming quotes and detailed, quirky descriptions of various representatives from each group.

Instead they are an "unusual stew" and their ads have "sharp elbows" (?).

There you have it - Dust Bunny Queen advocates violence against gays. Shocker

Not gay people, just you.

Dust Bunny Queen thinks that gay people should date people of the opposite sex. But then when they do that - she thinks they should be shot

Hardly. I don't think gay people should be forced to date anyone they don't want to date. I really don't care what you do with your little winky. Actually, I want DTL to never date anyone of the opposite sex for fear that he might accidentally pass on his nasty personality to another generation.

However, when someone goes out of their way to be cruel and harmful, I do think repercussions are in order.

If your people had ignored him and he had lived he would be long forgotten. Same with MLK, the American black Jesus. If he had not been killed in 1968 he would have been viewed as a black preacher from the 60s whose wife left him after discovering his homosexual affairs.

Same with Obama. If he survives the next 4 years he's the black Jimmy Carter. If he is assassinated he's JFK/MLK on steroids.

Gays will never have their rights in America. At least in my lifetime. And when I'm dead - well - I don't give a fuck about what happens when I'm dead. That's why I don't care about Global warming either.

So in the meantime - I will just treat religious people like scum. Just as they treat gays.

By the way, Mary got knocked up by Joseph and she made up a story about how she got pregnant. but we all know that was having sex. They should make a porno about Joseph fucking Mary.

Oh - the religious wingnuts are getting mighty upset that a gay man is talking to a girl.

Boo Hoo.

This is exactly what you wanted. I'm just following your instructions. And if some religious fat girl gets her hopes up for a month or two, only to get rejected after that, well - that's just the consequences of your hate.

Ok, first Ashton is not a descendant of a Mormon president. He might be a grandson of a councilor to a Mormon president. Either way, he made his money through a software company, WordPerfect. He donated his money to counter a donation by his former partner, Bruce Bastion, who donated to the No campaign.

DTL has claimed that Mormons accounted for 70% of donations. According to this site, it is 48%. What's your source for 70%?http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe2023SzWXxE8wYX5qWeoIw

I believe that the Archbishop of San Francisco was the Bishop in Salt Lake City. He had worked with the LDS church in the past and I'm sure that's why they requested assistance from the LDS church.

The reason why they presented the Yes campaign as being on the offensive is that it plays into the victim identity that homosexuals, and other minorities, use to get what they want. This isn't entirely illegitimate. The author is probably supportive of the No campaign and that is reflected in their writing. The phrase "order a march into battle" suggests this as well.

If the LDS church did not encourage its members to participate in this issue, the Yes campaign would have been outspent by at least 2-1, and possibly 4-1 (if DTL's 70% claim is accurate). They would have had few volunteers. Their message would not have gotten out. In short, the No campaign would have been able to 'buy' the election. Instead it was an evenly matched contest with a close outcome. I imagine that if the outcome was close to the Prop 22 outcome (60%+ voting in favor), the reaction would not have been so heated.

I view Ashton's closing comment, "by their fruits ye shall know them" as illustrative. This scripture means that you will know people by how they act. It isn't religious people who drumming homosexuals out of employment, disrupting their business or advocating violence now, it's the homosexuals. They've become what they were fighting against. Already, we've seen one poster here say that he will date otherwise unattractive women for the sole purpose of hurting them. It takes an ugly sort of person to lash out at strangers. I would shed no tears if this ended badly for him. He is a petty little man who cannot empathize.

People don't believe that gays want to do anything but destroy marriage... that this is an attack on traditional values...

dtl proves it.

He's like a street preacher who's as offensive as possible so that when people are "mean" to him he can pointing out the baseless persecution to prove how holy the obnoxious street preacher is because Jesus said we'd be persecuted for our faith. And look! Wow! Persecution!

In dtl's case, he's proving that straight people, particularly Christians, hate gay people because he can force *everyone* to be mean to him.

It matters not at all that he's trying to be as obnoxiously hateful as he possibly can... it's still all about his gayness.

I tend to be *for* gay marriage but dtl has me convinced that it really IS about sticking it to the religious, that it really IS about breaking what you don't actually want, just because other people want it.

Intellectually I know that isn't true for some percentage of gays, but my conception of how large that percentage is is shrinking smaller and smaller.

dtl wrote, Gays will never have their rights in America. At least in my lifetime.

How much longer are you planning to live? And by "rights," do you mean more than same-sex marriage? Or do you mean non-discrimination, which seems like a more subjective measure.

If you are waiting for leather queens to be allowed to teach grade school in full costume, well, that may not happen in your lifetime. But a straight dominatrix won't be able to, either.

I think that same-sex marriage will be recognized in at least a quarter of the states within 10 years. Ten or 15 years after that, it will be recognized across the nation.

There's still a chance that some sort of civil-union might be offered as a national compromise, but I don't think it's likely. There is no mechanism for bringing the two sides together and working out a compromise.

Individuals who want SSM (or Marriage Equity, if you prefer) will continue to push for that, and states with sympathetic populations will continue to grant SSM.

Religious people make up the driving force behind SSM. From what I've seen, marriage is the goal for same sex couples who are not part of the traditional gay rights activist circles. Sometimes called picket fence gays and lesbians, they have been a mostly silent bloc -- until now.

The gay and lesbian children of pastors* were crucial to getting this change started in my church. Ten or 15 years ago, some of them stopped pretending that their children -- and their children's sexual orientation -- did not exist.

*Granted, this is a generalization, but it's where I saw this start to happen most frequently.

Over time, their kids began to push for marriage. Their living witness is changing minds. It's a slow process, but it's happening.

dtl, on the other hand, is choosing to piss on everybody in hopes that -- well, what exactly? Oh yeah, in hopes that he'll get attention.

dtl, I have repeatedly and consistently said that I favor gay marriage because marriage is the foundational unit of social welfare and thus is a good thing.

I've come out in favor of marriage involving more than two adults! Who else who comments here has done that?

What marriage isn't is a *right*, as marriage is not a right for anyone, but a severely limited thing and always has been.

What marriage is, is under severed and concerted attack in our culture. On any of the recent gay marriage threads you will find me saying that we ought to define marriage upward, make divorce harder, *and* that it should be available to same sex couples.

That you see what you chose to see only proves you don't *look*. You want to see hatred, so you see it. You want to believe that people are hateful so you can hate them.

I see Aravosis is trying to lead a boycott on Sundance. What a joke.The last time I checked Aravosis's blog (granted, it was about 3 years ago), he was posting from his vacation in Morocco."You wouldn't think there is a care in the world!" he said.

It is illegal to engage in homosexual activity in Morocco.Is Aravosis going to boycott every place where gay marriage is banned?Will he refuse to travel to countries where homosexuality itself is banned?

Religious people make up the driving force behind SSM. From what I've seen, marriage is the goal for same sex couples who are not part of the traditional gay rights activist circles. Sometimes called picket fence gays and lesbians, they have been a mostly silent bloc -- until now.

This is my impression. Gay couples who want *to be* married (rather than who want to be allowed *to get* married) want the old-fashioned, traditional, profound sort of marriage... the sort that most heterosexuals have thrown away.

In a sense, they and the hard-core Christians are in agreement on the value of marriage. At least it seems to me, since both groups want marriage to mean something.

the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

The NYT doesn't get out much, I'm afraid. This "unusual stew" sounds a lot like the Pro-Life movement.

Are we troubled then, to hear that the "Yes" canvassers had alternate scripts that depended on whether the prospective voter was open to arguments that the right answer was God's answer?

Coalitions often include people who want the same goal for different reasons. The welfare reform movement comprised social conservatives who believed women should not have children out of wedlock, fiscal conservatives who didn't see why their money should be used to support other people's kids, and advocates of self-reliance who believed that no one should reproduce who was unable to support their own offspring.

dtl: Fat and ugly girls are realistic about their dating prospects, and are likely to reject you unless you're reasonably fat and ugly yourself.

alpha: although attitudes are changing, same-sex marriage still represents a sea change in many people's notion of marriage. The No on 8 campaign rubbed people the wrong way by telling them they were ignorant bigots. They should have focused on the positive: i.e. happy gay couples. Dan Savage with his husband and kid should have been the poster boy, as well as those octogenarian lesbians who married right before one passed away. That would have brought tears to a stone.

I agree fls, but I'm not sure if just showing happy gay couples and old ladies would do it.

I think that focusing on the value of marriage, and the threat to marriage, would. Because that's actually taking people's fears seriously. By *any* measure, marriage in our culture is threatened. Out and out *say* that getting a marriage that doesn't mean anything anymore isn't winning, and make actual suggestions to work together to reverse the trend.

Or would that loose the liberals? Would "men are all evil" feminists fall into hysterics at restoring any small aspect of the patriarchal oppression they've escaped?

No, don't take any larger political or philosophical points from downtownlad's behavior. The cause of his behavior is 100% psychological. According to his defunct blog, he was a closet case until he was in his 30s, spending his time lying to people and trying to pass, and spending his evenings on his knees in a bathroom somewhere, sucking cock. This kind of duplicity and self-repression, especially when needlessly carried on into adulthood, can cause severe psychological problems. His behavior also suggests that he developed no normal psychological bonds with either of his parents or that if he did, those bonds were severed in some traumatic way. He displays the emotional immaturity of a toddler. People are probably familiar with the public tantrums of toddlers, episodes so extreme in their volume and vigor that they cannot be ignored. This is a way to force attention from parents who may withhold positive attention or affection. The attention will undoubtedly be negative, but it will still be attention of one sort, and the child will understand that it is easier and far less emotionally taxing to throw a fit and receive negative attention than it is to try to elicit a positive emotional engagement from distant or abusive parents. The trouble is, of course, that the child's priorities shift towards negative engagement, and they may never develop the ability to have positive engagements with people. This can lead to extraordinarily destructive behavior, destructive to both the sociopath and to everyone that comes in contact with him. He learned early in life that the only way to get people to notice him is to piss them off. Or hurt them. Or worse. There's a fine line between being an angry sociopath and being a violent psychopath.

Downtownlad is not interested in having a conversation with anyone about anything, because he learned early on that "conversations" were unrewarding. So he comes into threads, posts a high volume of inflammatory nonsense and personal insults (the equivalent of that tantrum in the middle of Kmart) and soon his twisted view of human interaction is again validated. Look, everyone is talking about me! Of course, the talk is all negative and soon the initial thrill of his disruption dissipates and so he leaves, sated for the day.

I often advise people not to engage with him, but I realize why that's difficult. The comments section of this blog is a social space. Downtownlad knows this. He knows, from his twisted childhood, that it's easy to disrupt the rules that allow social spaces to form and function effectively. This is also how the commenter Titus operates, and similar to how terrorism works, though all three with different goals and results. Such people know that violation of social space is easily achieved and that there will be a guaranteed reaction. Downtownlad does it through invective, insult and repetition. Titus does it by dropping his pants, masturbating and then shitting on the rug. Terrorists do it by blowing up ordinary people.

Downtownlad is re-enacting some primal scene and using us as unwilling actors in his endless and dreary little psychodrama. I plead with people, once again, not to let themselves be provoked.

theo boem makes a good point. With the economy tanking, how do you sift the boycott from the collapse?

Any decrease in Utah GDP (and there will be one) will be trumpeted as an effect of the boycott by the boycotters, while cooler minds will do things like compare Utah's dip to California's or other states.

I think everyone has noted why gay extremists are out smashing windows on Mormon temples and disrupting Catholic services instead of going into black or hispanic areas and behaving similarly. Same craven cowardice as PETA activists show when they splash paint and yell obscenities at little old ladies in fur coats, but not at leather-clad bikers.

Little chickenshits.

This all could have been ended in the 80s if the gays who desacrated St Patrick's Cathederal in NYC had been beaten up on the spot, had their cheeks rouged and asses shaven, dressed up as altar boys, tied up, and left for the priests with homo tendencies.

I don't mean to be overly critical, but Jesus was a Jew and he was executed by the Romans. Yes, the Jewish establishment played a role, but then most of Jesus' followers were themselves Jewish too.

Jewish high priesthood tried and convicted Jesus as a heretic. Then dragged him to the Romans, who by law held a monopoly under the Occupation of Palestine to have exclusive right to mete out capital punishment.The Romans were not too keen on whacking heretics and doing the dirty work of the Jewish priests, but after seeing if the Jewish mob would defy the Sanhedrin and prefer the robber Barabbas to be executed over a heretic, the crowd decided, and Christ was executed.

****************This is also how the commenter Titus operates, and similar to how terrorism works

I disagree, Titus can be quite vulgar, but he can also be quite funny. Roaring laughter funny, in fact.Titus is no terrorist and he certainly does not pretend to be the morally superior salami-smoker of the salami smoker crowd, psychoanalyzing & policing "the gay ranks".

What we know about DTL is that he's a liar. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were not homosexual at all. He might just be a gold medal homophobe. I think it's likely he doesn't even know.

But I suspect, in simplest terms, he's evil. He has a terrorist's mindset as Palladian points out, that equation that says, "The world isn't what I want, therefore I can commit whatever horror I choose."

Of course, the point was never to change the world, but to commit the horror.

I'm reminded of Silence of the Lambs:

Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying.

"This all could have been ended in the 80s if the gays who desacrated St Patrick's Cathederal in NYC had been beaten up on the spot, had their cheeks rouged and asses shaven, dressed up as altar boys, tied up, and left for the priests with homo tendencies."

Whoa! Talk about psychoanalysis! Yikes! What a glimpse into Cedarford's musty little fantasy world. You all know that this little scenario plays itself out in Cedarford's mind. Over and over. And over. I bet ol' Cedarford has had a little rouge-ing and shaving done to him in his day...

"Titus is no terrorist and he certainly does not pretend to be the morally superior salami-smoker of the salami smoker crowd, psychoanalyzing & policing "the gay ranks"."

I didn't say Titus was a terrorist. I said that they shared tactics. But I understand why you'd hate psychoanalysis.. it was invented by JEWS!!!!!1

Althouse said: It bothers me that these 2 parts of the article are so widely separated, because it makes the "Yes" side look like it was playing a fearsome offensive game, when it was on the defense.

Uhh...they were the "YES" side, which means, umm, they were the ones responsible for putting this on the ballot. Their game was offense from the beginning, never defense, because THEY WERE THE ONES WHO PROPOSED THE PROPOSITION, right? How can you be bothered that they were made to look offensive, when they, the YES on 8 crowd, were by definition on the offense?

***

I just got home from one of today's rallies, here in Long Beach. It was a peaceful, somber affair. I was happily surprised to have the leader of the "protest" (it didn't feel like a protest so much as a community gathering) say from the get-go that while we could be angry, we should not seek to blame others. She told us that everyone, even those who voted "Yes," was a potential ally for our cause, and urged everyone to treat those on the other side with respect.

She, and other speakers, told us to put aside the inaccurate statistics about blacks and latino votes, and not let hate breed more hate. Everyone is our "brother or sister." The whole event took on a surprisingly religious tone, as pastors and church members took to the stage and preached about loving each other.

It got a little too focused on religion towards the end (I get it, not all religious people hate gay people), but all in all I appreciated the decent, strong, and empowering message of the whole day.

There were about 500 of us there (a small crowd compared to what's going on in LA and SF right now), and by the end of it, we were covered in ash and soot. California, by the way, is on fire right now.

I'm back from the protest demonstration. Underwhelmed. At one point, the guy with the microphone tried to get a chant going:

"What do we want?"

A couple people in the crowd answered weakly:

"Freedom"

Guy with microphone: "No, EQUALITY!"

This time when he asked "What do we want?" the crowd shouted back, predictably: "Equality."

Margaret Choo sang a "protest song" she had written for the event, apologized for being "guitarded," and sang a dopey little thing with the punchline being something like "shove NO on 8 up the asses of Mormons." The next speaker talked about how important it was for everyone to get out of their "comfort zones," whatever those are, and to talk to people who are "not like yourselves." I thought, you mean, like Mormons?

I found my daughter in the crowd, gave her a hug, took a few snapshots, and left before it was over.

My parents love me to death and I came out when I was like 10. I speak with my mother everyday, sometimes twice. She was so excited today. She just got back from a weekend tour of Chicago. She saw "Mame", Millenium Park, went out to dindin and breakfast and brunches and museums and tours of the city and stayed at the Double Tree which she loved. Total price tag for the weekend $275.00-with bus to and from Madison. Some senior special. I told her mother dear you can't even get a hotel here for $275.00 a night. Also, she told me that all tips were included. She usually stays at Motel 8's and 6's so this was a treat for her. She told me the tour was called The Devil in the White City tour. I said girl I read the book and am bringing it home for her during the holidays.

I am not a part of any gay group. As I have said before I generally hate other gays.

That being said, I have no interest in getting married myself. But I do hope a gay day comes, which I believe will, when my fellow gays and lesbians (who I generally don't like or talk to) will have that option.

I mean hello, remember when just a few years ago in Vermont the "civil union" thing was such a big deal? Now there are civil unions in New Hampshire, New Jersey and marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Motto of this story is to ignore the old Village People and updated Pet Shop Boys song, "Go West".

Wow - Cedarford does have it right for once. Palladian is trying to "police the gay ranks" yet again.

I could always psycho-analyze Palladian. He's fat. Gay people don't look kindly on fatsos, ergo Palladian self-admittedly has no gay friends. Palladian takes out his anger on gay people.

But I don't know Palladian, so it would be foolish to try and psycho-analyze him.

And Palladian has never met me, yet he chooses to judge. Anyway for those who are curious, I am extremely successful. I have managed groups close to 200 people, and I have ex-employees e-mailing me 5 years later proactively telling me how I am the best manager they've ever had. I've already recruited 5 of my ex-employees to move to another country to join my team in a little less than a year. In other words, I am calm, cool, and level-headed.

As for friends, I have lots of them, although I spend most of my time with a about 20 close straight friends (3 are very close), and 3 gay friends. And since they are all gay friendly, we hardly ever talk politics. I spend a lot more time talking about the stock markets and finance.

The true psycho-analysis of me is very simple. I treat you the way you treat me. I don't have any interest in taking the high road. People who vote to make gays second class citizens are treating gays with contempt. Fine - I will treat you with contempt. You mock me, then I will mock you. If you use religion against me, I will mock your religion. It's pretty simple.

I am deliberately trying to offend in my comments. It's my tactic and reflects how I feel about you.

Lots of gays take this tactic. Just look at the comments on any popular gay blog, such as Americablog, and you will see lots of people with the same attitude as me.

But I don't comment there - it would be too boring.

Anyway - I need to go to the gym. I weighed 147.6 this morning, and I need to make sure I maintain that six-pack.

SMGalbraith said..."It shouldn't be necessary to get the approval of the state (or others, really) for a union with someone you find. Who needs the sanction or approval of the state to satisfy their life choices? Isn't the satisfaction between yourself and your loved one sufficient?"

I don't worship the state or need its approval to go about my life or to recognize my living arrangements or decisions.

If the state (individual ones or using that synonymously with government) completely removed itself from involvement with marriages (issued no licenses, gave no spousal benefits, et cetera), that would have no significant effect on my marriage.

I would have to arrange spousal benefits and make other legal changes.

But my wife and I could not care less - not one bit - whether our marriage was approved or sanctioned by government. As long as they did not try to prevent us from living together and sharing our lives and property, we couldn't care less.

And for what's it worth - and it shouldn't be worth anything if one is mature enough to look at someone's arguments honestly - I favor extending marriage benefits (privileges) to same sex couples.

However, these benefits are not a "right" for same sex couples just as they are not a "right" for opposite sex couples. The state can completely remove itself from the matter of marriages and not recognize opposite sex marriages at any time.

Does the NYT get anything right anymore? Somewhere along the line they, and the Washington Post and a whole lot of other mainstream news sources, developed a new definition of "news" that doesn't seem to include actually providing information that is true and accurate.

I'm not religious myself (when I can be bothered to think about it, I suppose I'd consider myself an atheist), but, Mr. "alphaliberal," you have it precisely backwards. It isn't the churches that are attempting to force their doctrine down other people's throats but a political movement -- liberalism -- and a political party that is attempting to force their own definitions of what is right and proper down the throats of the devout.

To most Christians -- and doubtlessly other religions -- marriage is a sacrament, and the use of the word "marriage" that you and other liberals insist on is just one more effort on your part to stick your thumb in their eyes. As it happens, people don't like getting thumbs stuck in their eyes so you can drop your insistence on the word "marriage" or you can get ready for a war. That's reality.

Most of us try to live in a real world; perhaps you should try it some time.

Also, alpha's raging (at 11:01 AM) is pregnant with several false implications; (1) that receiving the sacrament of Communion is somehow an automatic right the Church owes the one requesting it - wrong, wrong, wrong; and (2) that a priest who warns a parishoner that to receive the body and blood of the Risen Christ when the parishoner is in a state of mortal sin is to put ones soul in great jeopardy and to commit a great sacrilege. Anyone who knows what's going on (unlike alpha, apparently) would recognize that the parish priest is not punishing the parishoners who chose to participate in the sin of abortion by voting for abortion advocating politicians, rather that priest is rescuing those parishoners from horrible and eternal consequences due to their sin.

The priest did not toss the sinners from the Church, raise an angry mob to vandalize their homes and workplaces, or even condemn them to hell. What the priest did was to remind those sinners that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is available to them and that once their sins are confessed and forgiven, the penitent can then be welcomed back into full communion with the Church and partake of the other sacraments without risking eternal damnation of their immortal souls.

Sigh. As far as alpha's grousing (at 10:37 AM) goes, it will be nice when we return to the days when atheists didn't entertain ideas that government exists to force the suppression of morality.

I could go for the privatization of the definition of marriage as long as I can freely use my private definition when deciding who to rent my property to or employ and promote in a job at my firm. Many leftists and other libertines forget that they take for granted that government will suppress folks selectively in support of their leftist libertine agendas.

Micha Elyi is correct about the basic theology of the issue as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Communion, or any other Sacrament, is not a "right," as alphaliberal seems to have said in his 11:01 AM comment referred to by Micha Elyi. Neither is the Sacrament of Matrimony.

As a practical matter, few priests, and, I think not many bishops support the withholding of Communion to those who voted for pro-abortion candidates. Most politicians have to be pro-abortion to get elected, and in many if not most parts of the country, a moderate pro-abortion stance is the default position of State Legislators and certainly Members of Congress. Much of the Clergy holds the position that the good of electing officials who support other things included in Catholic social teaching outweighs their nominal support for something that has become a settled matter. That may be proof of the evil times in which we live, but it is a fact of life.

I'm not sure about the connection of the definition of marriage with anti-discrimination legislation and legal precedent. To my mind, they are not related. The state traditionally has had an interest in promoting stable marriage as an institution for child raising, the orderly management of property rights, etc. If societal norms regarding marriage change, in a democracy, the state's involvement with marriage will change along with them.

Again, as a practical matter, if we have a situation where a small but fierce and organized minority want something, it will be too burdensome for the majority to resist. The solution is to get the state out of the "marriage" business and into the provision of gender-neutral civil unions for anyone who wants one and meets whatever modest requirements the state may choose to impose. Gender-neutral civil unions are a step away from traditional marriage, but if the word "marriage" has taken on too much religious baggage in our secular republic, similar benefits may accrue to society from civil unions.

Couples who are religious, or those who wish to appropriate the word for whatever reason, may refer to non-governmental ceremonies and their subsequent mode of life as "marriage," but the state ought to have no further involvement with the term.

I was in France recently, and saw the practical application of a policy something like this. A wedding party came out of the local mairie, and headed down the street to the Church. The French Republic has long drawn a cordon sanitaire around the performance of public functions, and priests have no official standing in governmental matters, including secular marriage.

It would be a relatively straightforward step for States to adopt, and for the Federal Government to recognize, a gender-neutral version of this.

Marriage would still be a Sacrament to those who view it as such, the state would promote nearly the same societal benefits as traditional marriage, and both gay controversialists and defenders of traditional marriage might be, at long last, equally satisfied or dissatisfied, such that they would shut up and leave us alone.

As a practical matter, if we have a situation where a small but fierce and meandering solitary wants to make elliptical cracks about English usage, it would be too burdensome to point to examples of the varieties of her pots and their relationship to others' kettles.